CIVIL LIABILITY IN COMMERCIAL SPACE VENTURES UNDER UNITED STATES LAWWord文件下载.docx

CIVIL LIABILITY IN COMMERCIAL SPACE VENTURES UNDER UNITED STATES LAWWord文件下载.docx

《CIVIL LIABILITY IN COMMERCIAL SPACE VENTURES UNDER UNITED STATES LAWWord文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《CIVIL LIABILITY IN COMMERCIAL SPACE VENTURES UNDER UNITED STATES LAWWord文件下载.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

SpaceLaw.5

AirandSpaceLawyer

Fall,1991

*5CIVILLIABILITYINCOMMERCIALSPACEVENTURESUNDERUNITEDSTATESLAW

RudolphV.Pino,Jr.

FrankA.Silane[FNa]

Copyright（c）1991bytheAmericanBarAssociation;

RudolphV.Pino,Jr.andFrankA.Silane

IntheUnitedStates,itistheusualpracticeforcommercialspaceventurestoinvolveacooperativeeffortbygovernmentandprivateindustry.Thegrowthanddevelopmentofcommercialspaceindustrydependsupontheabilityandwillingnessoftheprivatesectortoinvestsubstantialfinancialresourcestodevelopthenewproductsandskillsnecessarytoadvancethestateoftechnologybeyonditspresentlimits.Thewillingnessofprivateindustrytocommitlargefinancialresourcestosuchahighriskendeavordepends,toasubstantialdegree,uponitsabilitytopredict,tolimitandtoinsureagainstthepotentiallydestructiveburdensofcivilliabilitywhichcanresultfromaproductfailureorfromnegligenceintheperformanceoflaunchservices.

Forthesereasons,itisimportanttounderstandthepotentialforcivilliabilityassociatedwithcommercialspaceventuresandtoknowhowthispotentialliabilitycanbelimitedoreliminated.Thefirstsectionofthisarticleexplainsthegeneralschemeofcivilliabilityasitappliestothoseengagedincommercialspaceventures（explainsthevariouslegalbasesforcivilliabilityandidentifiesthosewhohaveliabilityexposure）.Thesecondsectionofthearticleisintendedtoprovidepracticaladviceforlimitingexposuretocivilliabilitybycontractandtoprovideexamplesofhowthosetechniqueshaveaffectedactualcasesinvolvingsatellitelosses.

I.BasesforCivilLiabilityUndertheLawsoftheUnitedStates

ControllingLaw/ChoiceofLawAnalysis

Ingeneral,thereisnolaworschemeofliabilitywhichappliesspecificallytocommercialspaceventures.[FN1]Thelawgoverningthecivilliabilityofmanufacturersofaerospaceproductsandprovidersoflaunchservicesisusuallythesamelawwhichgovernsthecivilliabilityofthosewhoprovideothertypesofproductsandservices.Generally,thelawgoverningcivilliabilityinthiscontextisnotfederallawbutis,instead,thelawofthespecificstatewhichhasthemostsubstantialrelationshipwiththeincidentortransactiontowhichthelawwillapply.Thismeansthatthesubstantivelawwhichwillprovidethebasisforcivilliabilitymustbedeterminedineachcasebyanalyzingsuchvariablefactorsas（a）wheretheallegedlydefectiveproductsweremanufacturedorthenegligentservicewasperformed,（b）wheretheproductsorservicesweresoldorused,and（c）wherethecontractualrelationshipbetweenthepartieswasestablished.Thus,theapplicablelawcan,andoftendoes,varyfromcasetocase.Theresultofthechoiceoflawanalysiscanbecriticalbecausethedifferencesinlawofthecompetingjurisdictionscanchangetheultimateoutcomeofacase.Yet,despitethelegaldifferenceswhichexistinthelawofeachjurisdiction,therearecertainprinciplesofcivilliabilitywhicharecommontomostjurisdictionsthroughouttheUnitedStates.Thesecommonlegalprinciplesandthebasesforliabilitywhicharerecognizedinvirtuallyalljurisdictionsareasfollows.

FormsofLiability

EveryjurisdictionintheUnitedStateswillimposebothtortandcontractliabilityonthoseresponsibleforinjuriesorlossescausedbydefectiveproductsorbyserviceswhichwereperformednegligently.Thisconceptofcivilliabilityappliestothoseengagedintheaerospaceindustryasitdoestothosewhomanufactureothermoremundaneproductssuchasautomobilesandrollerskates.Thereisnospecialtreatmentorstatutoryprotectionfromordinarycivilliability.Aswiththeprovidersofanyothergoodsandservices,thosewhoparticipateincommercialspaceventureshaveexposuretoliabilityinbothcontractandtortwhichislimitedonlybytheextentoftheresultingdamages.

Tortliabilitygenerallyoccurswheretherehasbeensomenegligenceonthepartofthepartyprovidingthegoodsorservicesandtortliabilityusually,althoughnotalways,requiressomeevidenceofalosswhichinvolvesphysicalharmtoapersonorpropertyratherthanpurelyeconomicharm.

*6Mostjurisdictionsalsorecognizeasecondformoftortliabilityknownas“strictproductliabilityintort”whichisahybridoftortandcontractprinciples.Itimposestortliabilityandtortdamages,withoutfault,uponthosewho（a）produceordistributeproductswhicharedefectivewhensoldorplacedinthestreamofcommerce,（b）whichreachtheconsumeroruserwithoutmaterialchange,and（c）wherethedefectresultsinphysicaldamagetopersonsorproperty.Thestrictproductliabilityconceptusuallydoesnotapplytoclaimsbetweencommercialentitiesforpurelyeconomicdamages.

Contractliabilitydiffersfromtortliabilityinthatitdoesnotinvolvetheconceptsofnegligenceorfault.Itisaformofstrictliabilitywhichisbaseduponeithera（a）breachofexpresscontracttermsor（b）breachwarrantieswhichareexpresslystatedinthecontractorwhichareimpliedbylaw.[FN2]Contractliabilityexistsevenwherethedamagesareonlyeconomic,althoughrecoverabledamagesareusuallymorelimitedthanincasesarisingintort.

Manufacturersorsellersofdefectiveproductsarecommonlysubjectedtoclaimsbaseduponboththeoriesofliability.Atypicalclaimantinatypicalproductliabilitycasewillallegenegligenceinthedesignmanufactureandtestingoftheproductandalsoallegethatthedefendantbreachedimpliedwarrantiesthattheproductisof“merchantablequality”andis“fitforitsintendeduse.”Althoughtheseverydifferenttheoriesofcivilliabilityareusuallyassertedsimultaneouslyinasinglecase,thecompensatorydamageswhichtheclaimantisentitledtorecoverinasinglecasearenotcumulative.Regardlessofthenumberoflegaltheoriesaclaimantisabletoassertandtoprove,aclaimant'

scompensatorydamageswillnotexceedtheactualvalueofthelosseswhichhehasincurred.

PersonsWhoMayIncurCivilLiability

UnderU.S.law,anypersonorentitythatprovidesaservicenegligentlyorthatparticipates,eveninalimitedway,inplacingadefectiveproductintothestreamofcommerce,hasexposuretocivilliabilityfordamagesthatresultfromtheservicesnegligentlyperformedorfromtheproductdefect.Thepotentialliabilityextendstoanyoneinthedistributivechain,includingthosewhodesign,manufacture,test,distribute,sellorleaseproducts.Thelawappliesequallytothosewhoproduceandsellsmallorinexpensivepartsandcomponentsasitdoestothosewhoproduceandsellthemoreexpensivefinishedproductsintowhichthepartsandcomponentshavebeenintegrated.Forexample,themanufacturerofasmallandinexpensivecomponentthatcausesasatellitetofailtoreachorbitortooperatenominallyhasthesamepotentialexposuretoliabilityastheproviderofthelaunchvehicleorthemanufacturerorsellerofthesatelliteintowhichthecomponentwasincorporated.Thus,thesellerofanupperstagerocketexitconewhichcostslessthan$100,000mayhavepotentialliabilityinexcessof$100millioniftheconeweretofailcausingthelossofasatellite,assumingthatthesellerhasnotlimiteditsliabilitybycontract.

Consideringtheenormityofthepotentiallosses,includinglostprofitswhichcanresultfromalaunchfailureorsatellitefailure,itbecomesapparentthatthoseengagedincommercialspaceventuresmustdotheirutmosttoquantifyandlimittheirexposuretoliabilitybycontracttothefullestextentpermittedbylaw.Thefailuretoincludevalidandenforceablecontractualdisclaimersandlimitationsofliabilityincontractsforthesaleofproductsandservicescanresultindevastatingcivilliabilityanddefensecosts.Eveninthoseinstanceswheretheclaimisdefendedsuccessfully,thecostofdefensetotheproduceroftheproductoritsinsurerscanbecatastrophic,andisgenerallynotrecoverablebytheprevailingparty.

II.LimitingLiabilitybyContract

InmostjurisdictionsoftheUnitedStates,contractswhichapportion,limit,ordisclaimliabilityentirelyareenforceablewithrespecttoclaimsforcommerciallossesordamagetopropertyiftheyaredraftedtocomplywiththerequirementsoftheapplicablelaw.Thespecificcircumstancesunderwhichsuchclausesareenforceableandthepartiesagainstwhomtheymaybeassertedeffectivelymaydifferdependinguponthevariationsinthelawofeachstate.Nevertheless,suchclausesareenforceabletosomedegreeinalljurisdictions,evenwithrespecttonegligenceclaims,providedthat（a）thepartiesexpresstheirintentinclear,plainandunambiguouslanguage,（b）thetermsarenegotiatedingoodfaith,（c）betweencommercialentitiesofrelativelyequalbargainingstrength,and（d）donotviolatesomeexpresspublicpolicy.

Requirementsofenforceabilitymayvarydependinguponwhichstatelawgovernsthecontract.Somejurisdictionsrequireveryprecisecontractlanguagetoachieveanenforceabledisclaimerofliabilityforcertaintypesofclaims.Forexample,inCalifornia,anattempttodisclaimliabilityforone'

sownnegligencewillbeenforceableonlyifthecontractstatesexplicitlythatthepartiesintendtohavethedisclaimerapplytonegligenceclaims.Insuchjurisdictions,theword“negligence”mustbeused.Iftheword“negligence”isnotused,thedisclaimerwouldlikelybeunenforceableastoclaimsbasedinnegligenceregardlessofhowclearlythepartiestothecontractmayhaveotherwisestatedtheirintention.

Thefollowingcontractlanguageillus